[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I believe we are posting in the Theology forum.

Yes, a theology forum on the broader science forums.

Science revealed nothing about bactria, until the microscope. Just because we do not have already have a scientific explanation for something, that doesn't mean a scientific explanation is not possible. A reason for speaking outside of the science forums, is to ask the impossible questions and than attempt to answer them. The step to wisdom begins with "I don't know".

I agree with this. I encourage it!

As soon as we believe we know God, we know God not.

I'm not sure why you stated this. Are you suggesting that the reverse is true as well?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

...Science revealed nothing about bactria, until the microscope. ...The step to wisdom begins with "I don't know". As soon as we believe we know God, we know God not.

Excellent.

"Believing in" is a mental process that is similar to (metaphor alert) casting something in concrete. Once the concrete dries, you may be able to paint it, or hang flowers on it, or drape it in fabric, but the concrete itself cannot be changed. The mind stops "searching" for alternate shapes and forms. There is only one shape, one form, the concrete statue in front of the eyes. All subsequent questions are limited to those that fit that shape, that form. After a while, the mind ceases to wonder if there ever could be any other shapes.

The second step to wisdom begins with "I want to know".

[C1ay]

One can believe in both God and science but they must realize that they believe in the God-Of-Gaps where God is considered the answer for phenomena that cannot currently be explained by science. As science progress though the gaps get smaller and smaller and carried on ad infinitum would eventually leave no gaps for God.

Remember theists, there once was a time when man believed that the God Of Fire was responsible for fire. We know differently now.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't have any problem doing both at the same time. These are two different areas of knowledge. I like to keep all the options open. But being in the middle I have tried to find a way to bridge the two. The way I did that was science is about the outer reality and religion about the inner reality connected to human consciousness. Religion is about the evolution of human nature and tells the sequence of how it evolved and changed.

The area where science and religion overlap is consciousness. Science investigates the brain but really can't agree on a definition of consciousness which covers all the options and features of human mind. The problem this can create is human consciousness is the main and most important tool used by science. It is sort of like using an analytical instrument, with some unknown features. How do we know it is calibrated properly? Or how do we filter out noise from the unconscious? Religion, over the years, projected mythology into the world from the unconscious and imagination. Layer by layer science has shifted through these affects from the mind to improve calibration. But not really knowing how the mechanism fully works does not mean all the haze is gone. Religion does allow another angle that allows one to get a handle on that other haze.

Let me given an example. One of the main mysteries in cosmology, based on solid data is the horizon problem, where there is uniform cosmic background microwaves in all directions. It is not easy to explain, since energy needs to move faster than speed of light. Although everyone knows this is a problem, the resolution is not necessary for any theory. In the real world, without haze, if we can't explain this valid observation maybe we are missing something. Focusing on the beginning of time is nice but it also buffers one from the anomaly. Maybe theories can't explain it because these are partly from the imagination. It is not helios riding his chariot but sort of a modern version of the same thing. One may ask won't helios catch fire? Don't worry about the CMBR he is a god and this will not affect him.

The next question is, what is the motivation for all this, maybe this can tell us the nature of the haze in calibration? It could be fame, fortune and females, all of which can be fun. It could be competition, with science being a tough sport. We only have one universe how can we have more than one explanation? Say one is correct, does that mean science can also support n- imaginary realities? How is this different than chosen Zeus, Venus or Apollo. One is a humanoid personification and the others are abstractions wrapped in mathematics addressing obscure areas of fuzzy reality. There will come a time when people look back and say those superstitious scientists of the 22nd century, the stuff they thought all that was real.

I am not dumping on science, rather I am only pointing out some of the calibration problems with the main analytical equipment. When the human mind reaches the limits of reality some type of religion appears. It is a natural way the human instrument has evolved to work. Religion often provides clues on how inner mechanism works because the human mind worked that way for thousands of years.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Excellent.

"Believing in" is a mental process that is similar to (metaphor alert) casting something in concrete. Once the concrete dries, you may be able to paint it, or hang flowers on it, or drape it in fabric, but the concrete itself cannot be changed. The mind stops "searching" for alternate shapes and forms. There is only one shape, one form, the concrete statue in front of the eyes. All subsequent questions are limited to those that fit that shape, that form. After a while, the mind ceases to wonder if there ever could be any other shapes.

The second step to wisdom begins with "I want to know".

I am very thankful for what you have said.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

I don't have any problem doing both at the same time. These are two different areas of knowledge. I like to keep all the options open. But being in the middle I have tried to find a way to bridge the two. The way I did that was science is about the outer reality and religion about the inner reality connected to human consciousness. Religion is about the evolution of human nature and tells the sequence of how it evolved and changed.

I wouldn't refer to religion as knowledge, it's more like opinion. They're really pretty easy to sort out. Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. Religion, in the broadest sense, refers to made up answers which attempt to model objective reality.

[HydrogenBond]

wouldn't refer to religion as knowledge, it's more like opinion. They're really pretty easy to sort out. Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. Religion, in the broadest sense, refers to made up answers which attempt to model objective reality.

This may be true when religion tries to explain physical reality. The movement of the sun across the sky was helios in his chariot. But religion has another side connected to understanding human nature. Let me give an example. Before monotheism, i.e., Moses, idol worship was common. After that one was not suppose to do this.

One way to look at idol worship is connected to the subjective affects a good work of art can create. Good art can cause the observer to drift off in their imaginations or feel something. The art critics then try to define what the artist meant, if artist is not around to explain, and those in the know, will begin to tailor their own subjective reactions down these lines. In ancient idol worship, the idol was essentially a work of art able to induce that art subjectivity. Humans didn't know the art was pushing their buttons but assumed it was a god within the art that was doing this. The temple priests were the art critics sort of funneling the collective reaction to the art, i.e., golden calf.

They didn't have psychology to help explain their reaction was coming from the unconscious. Monotheism indirectly tried to point this out. The golden calf was not a god but a manmade object that was pushing unconscious buttons creating a compelling special affect, i.e., art affect. Through the power of suggestion combined with group reinforcement the special affect is amplified to where appears more real. The change helped people clear their heads so they could remove the subjectivity from synthetic. It was still there in the natural world waiting for science to clear the head.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that some aspects of science are creating their own special affects. I am not saying all of science is suspect because most of it appears very rational. But hypothetically, one might expect the same idol response, since this is part of human nature. Special effects that trigger the unconscious could explain how we can get so many compelling alternatives for what should be a mono-phenomena. This is a different type of art work more based on mathematical abstractions or computer simulations. They can't all be right, when some are mutually exclusive. It is not easy to tell which are the golden calfs.

Simplicity seems to be the way nature is set up. For example, life displayed extreme complexity until the cell was discovered. This simple observation, which anyone could grasp, put the entire random complexity into a common sense perspective. Next, the cell got more and more complex as the capability for investigation evolved. Then DNA and genes created another common sense simplicity that allows everyone the ability to participate. Simplicity is how nature is. But from a marketing point of view a plane box does not sell as well as a fancy container. The fancy container will create more subjectivity, i.e., modern, advanced, thereby adding the special affect which people seem to crave.

Early Christianity took this one step further trying to calibrate the mind even better. Not being conformed to the cultural world, was not so much to ignore it, but to try to unravel another layer of fog. If culture defines the pet rock as valuable, the subjectivity spreads to the entire herd. Now it can seem almost objective to get a pet rock because there is a cause and affect with respect to the way the herd and the pecking order will react. The mind is collectively calibrate and based on that subjective calibration we use cause and affect to work in that reality. At one level it is objective but the data is off due to the calibration error. The household pet is actually more objective treating the pet rock as a rock. In modern times, the home computer evolves the hardware faster than software. But the calibration is set to think a few milliseconds will make life better. Within that calibration of the mind it does appear to be fully objective.

Taking the middle point between science and religion I keep in mind the golden calf affect. The golden age of science was trying to reduce the complex to simplicity. After that, there is a transition point. Natural is just a simple box, like E=MC2. But a simple box does not sell as well today based on the calibration of the mind. In my experience it is almost forbidden. For example, some areas of physics work under the assumption that common sense no longer applies or it can't be reduced to common sense. The special affects will not work if we require simplicity or common sense. I like science and what I do is not against science, but against special affects. The mind can appear objective even when the calibration is not at zero.

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

This may be true when religion tries to explain physical reality. The movement of the sun across the sky was helios in his chariot. But religion has another side connected to understanding human nature. Let me give an example. Before monotheism, i.e., Moses, idol worship was common. After that one was not suppose to do this.

One way to look at idol worship is connected to the subjective affects a good work of art can create. Good art can cause the observer to drift off in their imaginations or feel something. The art critics then try to define what the artist meant, if artist is not around to explain, and those in the know, will begin to tailor their own subjective reactions down these lines. In ancient idol worship, the idol was essentially a work of art able to induce that art subjectivity. Humans didn't know the art was pushing their buttons but assumed it was a god within the art that was doing this. The temple priests were the art critics sort of funneling the collective reaction to the art, i.e., golden calf.

They didn't have psychology to help explain their reaction was coming from the unconscious. Monotheism indirectly tried to point this out. The golden calf was not a god but a manmade object that was pushing unconscious buttons creating a compelling special affect, i.e., art affect. Through the power of suggestion combined with group reinforcement the special affect is amplified to where appears more real. The change helped people clear their heads so they could remove the subjectivity from synthetic. It was still there in the natural world waiting for science to clear the head.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that some aspects of science are creating their own special affects. I am not saying all of science is suspect because most of it appears very rational. But hypothetically, one might expect the same idol response, since this is part of human nature. Special effects that trigger the unconscious could explain how we can get so many compelling alternatives for what should be a mono-phenomena. This is a different type of art work more based on mathematical abstractions or computer simulations. They can't all be right, when some are mutually exclusive. It is not easy to tell which are the golden calfs.

Simplicity seems to be the way nature is set up. For example, life displayed extreme complexity until the cell was discovered. This simple observation, which anyone could grasp, put the entire random complexity into a common sense perspective. Next, the cell got more and more complex as the capability for investigation evolved. Then DNA and genes created another common sense simplicity that allows everyone the ability to participate. Simplicity is how nature is. But from a marketing point of view a plane box does not sell as well as a fancy container. The fancy container will create more subjectivity, i.e., modern, advanced, thereby adding the special affect which people seem to crave.

Early Christianity took this one step further trying to calibrate the mind even better. Not being conformed to the cultural world, was not so much to ignore it, but to try to unravel another layer of fog. If culture defines the pet rock as valuable, the subjectivity spreads to the entire herd. Now it can seem almost objective to get a pet rock because there is a cause and affect with respect to the way the herd and the pecking order will react. The mind is collectively calibrate and based on that subjective calibration we use cause and affect to work in that reality. At one level it is objective but the data is off due to the calibration error. The household pet is actually more objective treating the pet rock as a rock. In modern times, the home computer evolves the hardware faster than software. But the calibration is set to think a few milliseconds will make life better. Within that calibration of the mind it does appear to be fully objective.

Taking the middle point between science and religion I keep in mind the golden calf affect. The golden age of science was trying to reduce the complex to simplicity. After that, there is a transition point. Natural is just a simple box, like E=MC2. But a simple box does not sell as well today based on the calibration of the mind. In my experience it is almost forbidden. For example, some areas of physics work under the assumption that common sense no longer applies or it can't be reduced to common sense. The special affects will not work if we require simplicity or common sense. I like science and what I do is not against science, but against special affects. The mind can appear objective even when the calibration is not at zero.

I have to say I agree with the idea that science is going the same path that religion once took. We have "the same idol response, since this is part of human nature". When this happens, I say a person is being up tight, because it is not allowing for other possibilities, any more than religion once did. When we can't even say, we can study nature and infer something about God; than we should question, what is a theology forum doing in the science forum? If it is taboo to say and think something, there shouldn't be a place for it. Make sense?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I have to say I agree with the idea that science is going the same path that religion once took.

Yeah, Science is closed-minded.

When we can't even say, we can study nature and infer something about God; than we should question, what is a theology forum doing in the science forum?

Good question!

If it is taboo to say and think something, there shouldn't be a place for it. Make sense?

The theology forum is supposed to be a place where a scientific discussion of religion can occur. It is not a place where someone says, "When we can't even say, we can study nature and infer something about God". It could be a scientific discussion, but because you've refused to answer the question of "what" we can infer about god, it becomes troubling. One must believe in god and seek to infer something about it in nature. Or, one does not believe in god, so can observe nature and not infer anything about god.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

than we should question, what is a theology forum doing in the science forum?

Aside from the existence or non-existence of God(s), religion is a valid part of the study of social sciences, cultures of people. We do not need to endlessly debate the unprovable, unsupportable claims of the existences of God(s) but if we want to apply science to populations of people we have to study the effects of religion on those peoples and their cultures. Theology is a valid social science that can be intellectually evaluated without ever raising the question of God. Even if someone could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God, some societies would cling to that belief and it would still be part of their culture. In the interest of science there is a need to study theology.